Tv Election Debates

All websites are prone to be taken over by those with the loudest voices or deepest pockets. I fear one like this, however well intentioned, would be no different, unless the government also moderated it strictly, which would rather defeat the object.

 

I'd give the Government the benefit of the doubt:any contributor whose *"reasonably sensible" views were not published could shriek quite loudly over the internet.
And by reasonably sensible,I mean that should an idea be potentially controversial and really offensive,a very quick telephone survey of random voters could determine whether Joe Public was ready for the theory to be aired
Also, while I appreciate that it,(the site), could be taken over,I'd like to think that potential problems could be overcome,rather than use them as a reason for continuing as we are

 

No.

 

I would prefer to hear what the MEP's have to say, after all, the EU is what matters. So called devolved Governments are nothing more than large councils. Whether we like it or not, we are in the EU and we are not leaving. So the more people accept that, then things may change.
I do not understand those that clap and cheer at the party events, they seem blinded to me, but if that's their interest, who am I to criticise.

 

I've had an idea. Each party could put together its policy proposals, principles, and aspirations, assemble them into a document (as long or as short as they choose), and publish it before the election. These docs could be circulated, quoted from, analysed, and criticised. They could be called ... oh, I don't know ... maybe a "manifesto".

 

Heh. You had this idea ages ago, and posted it, if memory serves. Perhaps it was on Ducatisti.

How "fuzzy" is the language of the manifesto allowed to be? For example, "Sensible, realistic fiscal policy through prudent management of the economy" ... is that vague enough?

 

I think the EU will expand and that we will leave it before it eventually falls apart after sowing the seeds of its own downfall.

I've formed that view by looking at the history of empires formed by uniting under one flag disparate countries with very few points of social and economic convergence - and that's the way the EU heading because of the European superstate agenda dreamed up by France and Germany.

 

That is all well and good,but the the authors of each manifesto answer their own questions,and therefore it's difficult to compare like with like.
My suggestion is that every party/prospective party would be asked to respond to the same broad range of questions,which are set by citizens entitled to vote,perhaps including those who are almost of voting age.
Put all the answers side by side and the average Joe might have a better idea of who intends to do what and when....
Of course there are no guarantees that whoever gets in would do what they said they would

 

Like the Lib Dems agreeing in government to treble tuition fees after campaigning on a ticket to scrap them completely? Surely no party would be as duplicitous as that?

 

It will expand, but we won't leave..

 

Depends who's elected and what line they take before the referendum that will inevitably take place IMO.

 

There are a lot out there that believe what they are told. Leave the EU, some will believe they won't get Eurosport. None of the parties actually want to leave the EU.

 

Anyway, the EU is the power house. Who is in charge now, Luxembourg. Like they will rock the boat.

 

If there is a coalition after the election rather than a single-party government (which is quite possible), then it is certain that the parties in the coalition will not be able to deliver on their manifesto promises. The only way two or more parties can form a coalition is for them to dump those of their commitments which are incompatible.

So those folk who say they are in favour of coalitions must be in favour of the said dumping, mustn't they? What is the point of moaning about parties dumping manifesto commitments when that is what they are forced to do by events?

 

I agree. But all empires fall. The EU and the US will go the same way as the others. Decay and death are the only options. We may not see it in our lifetimes but it will happen, I feel sure, unless there is massive reform and states and people are allowed to re-establish their own identities.

As it is, Britain is itself a nation in decline, refusing to assert some values and having others destroyed by ill-conceived political and economic alliances. Why are we so scared to stand up for the values that have served us well for nearly two centuries?

 

I said it for you above, Glid.

 

Compared to a few years ago, I find myself thinking about what would happen if the UK does leave the EU - specifically, what downsides would impact the country as a result of resentment affecting how the EU treats a former member.

I'm starting to wonder whether the fallout from the split would be the worst thing that would happen, rather than any likely ongoing disadvantages of independence. This represents a slight change of heart for me, as previously I could see no benefit whatsoever of leaving the EU. I perhaps fear the divorce more than I fear living separate lives, if you will.

I haven't turned Euro-sceptic, though. Don't get excited

 

It won't matter a jot to most of us whether the UK leave the EU or not.Some people will benefit,others will lose out,but the sun will still rise the day after the departure.
Every factory that exports from Europe to the UK will still want to,(and vice-versa),woe betide any government that tries to build trade barriers that might prevent them doing so.
International transport will have to make adjustments,in the same way we do when taking anything to Swiss or Norway,but I'll get over it.
Listen out for the chorus of,"we're all doomed",from the self-important fortune tellers until it happens:two days later the dust will have settled and we'll be back to moaning about the weather